adminMashudu Netsianda Senior Court Reporter
A FILABUSI businessman and politician, Spare Sithole, is locked in legal battle with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development following the cancellation of his mining claims at Limerick Farm. Sithole’s mining licence was cancelled over his alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Management Agency (EMA).
Sithole, who lost the Zanu-PF Insiza South primary election in 2013, filed an application for review at the Bulawayo High Court challenging the decision by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development not to renew his permits in terms of the Mines and Minerals Act. In court papers, Sithole who is the applicant cited the Bulawayo provincial mining director and the Minister of Mines and Mining Development, Walter Chidhakwa as respondents.
“I am the registered owner/holder of a certain claim known as a block consisting of 10 gold reef claims named Limerick North 1 and 2 situated on Limerick Farm and held under registration numbers 47059 and 47060. I have religiously and constantly renewed my certificates in compliance with the provision of the Mines and Minerals Act,” said Sithole in his founding affidavit.
The businessman said he only discovered that his mining claims had been forfeited after he had gone to the Bulawayo provincial mining director’s offices at Mhlahlandlela Building intending to renew his registration certificate.
A notice of forfeiture appeared in the Government Gazette.
Sithole said he had complied with the EMA requirements and the provincial mining director had no legal basis to withdraw his licence.
“Section 50 (1) of the Mines and Minerals Act does not empower the first respondent (Bulawayo provincial mining director) to forfeit my mine even if I were to be said to have failed to comply with the EMA requirements,” said Sithole.
He further argued that in terms of section 50 (2) of the Mines and Minerals Act, the first respondent was supposed to have given him a notice of his intention to cancel the certificate as well as the grounds of such cancellation and the proposed date of cancellation.
Sithole also accuses the Minister Chidhakwa of failing to comply with the requirements of the law.
“The second respondent (Minister Chidhakwa) simply issued a notice in the Government Gazette of the cancellation of the certificate without compliance with the peremptory provisions of the statutes. The requirements of the tendering of notice to me by the first respondent are contained in section 50 (3) of the Mines and Minerals Act. They require the first respondent to give me notice by way or means of registered post, which was not done,” said the businessman.
He said the decision by the Bulawayo provincial mining director was grossly unreasonable and reviewable.
“Section 50 (2) of the Act provides that if I am aggrieved by the decision of the first respondent, I must make an appeal to the minister. However, this process of appeal is premised upon the first respondent having communicated his intention. The first respondent ought to have followed due process and procedure by affording me an opportunity to be heard and to make my representations,” said Sithole.
He said despite lodging an appeal with Minister Chidhakwa, he did not receive a response.
Sithole said the decision by the Bulawayo provincial mining director was arbitrarily unfair and a violation of the principles of natural justice.
“I submit that the decision of the first respondent is unreasonable and this court has a wide discretion in terms of the law to review and give directions to the respondents as the court may consider necessary or desirable to achieve reasonableness and fairness in line with objects of the statute,” said Sithole.
Online Reporter